Monday, March 12, 2007

Do you love the Novus Ordo?

PBVI sure does. In a post at the Mount Carmel Bloggers, of which I am also a member, he states his position in no uncertain terms in a post headlined 'I love the Novus Ordo Mass!'.

Here's how is begins:

After seeing some blogs that have signs saying they love the Traditional Latin Mass I thought it would be good to have one saying something positive about the "Novus Ordo" Mass, or the Mass of Paul VI.Now please don't get me wrong--- I do love the Tridentine Mass, but I also love the Novus Ordo because in this Mass is the same awesome Sacrifice and the same Christ made present to us in the Most Holy Eucharist!...

Go here to read the rest and let me know what you think. I'm preparing a response of my own.

5 comments:

While I see no comparision between the Pauline Mass vs. the Tridentine, both are valid, and both are the Sacrifice. Now, other questions such as how the Pauline is celebrated is a totally different subject, but I love both Masses because it is the Holy and Living Sacrifice of Calvary, and gift from my God.

While I see no comparision between the Pauline Mass vs. the Tridentine, both are valid, and both are the Sacrifice. Now, other questions such as how the Pauline is celebrated is a totally different subject, but I love both Masses because it is the Holy and Living Sacrifice of Calvary, and gift from my God.

I can't bring myself to love a Mass manufactured by a committee in such a short period of time, even if it is splendidly celebrated ala London Oratory style. No other Catholic rite is as problematic as the Novus Ordo. Sure, it is valid if validly celebrated, but that's not the issue here right?

There seems to be confusion in this thread concerning the essence of the Mass as such and the essence of liturgy as such or the Roman Rite as such.

There are different ways to look at the Mass. If you look at it as simply a Mass, Jesus is the same in every Mass, of course. But He is present even in the Orthodox, schismatic, and even heretical communities with valid holy orders. So validity is NOT the proper standard to judge the liturgy.

The Roman Rite is an historical Rite of Mass, which the Popes have said is of Apostolic tradition. That means its essentials came from the Apostles and it developed down the centuries. It was never the product of commission, but the product of the living Church of God, the people of God under the guidance of the Holy Ghost over many centuries.

The Novus Ordo, since it is a fabricated rite of Mass, is not the historical Roman Rite. Great liturgists such as Msgr. Klaus Gamber admit that readily. So the Novus Ordo already fails as not even being the Roman Rite of Mass (except in the very loose sense where Roman Rite simply refers to a rite of Mass in use in the Roman Church).

Now beyond this, the Novus Ordo fails in several areas because of the distinction I made between the essence of the Mass and the essence of the liturgy. For Mass, one needs a priest with valid orders, using the valid form of Consecration, with valid matter and proper intent. (the Novus Ordo in the vernacular is defective even here, although not to the point of invalidating it).

Liturgy, however, is something different. Essential to it are rubrics, motions, symbol, mystery, "sacred space" (as Ratzinger calls it), sacred language, etc. In all of these respects, the Novus Ordo falls far short of the Traditional Rite. It lacks much of the essence of good liturgy. But most especially it lacks continuity with tradition.

These thoughts could be reflected upon at length. I don't have time to do that, but just wanted to give you something to think about. Probably the best thing that could be done (IMHO) is to shore up the "Novus Ordo" and add back the elements necessary to make it good liturgy, add elements of tradition to it and then use it as perhaps a missionary Mass for use in places being evangelized.

But the universal norm for the Roman Church should always be the historical Roman Rite. It was foolish and destructive to take that away.